NCAA approves tougher sanctions for rule-breakers

[GrizBacker04]

It was announced today that the NCAA has changed its policies on how it handles schools that break the rules. Here is the link to the entire article. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/10/30/ncaa-sanctions-rule-breakers.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a2&eref=sihp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do like some of the changes, including stiffer penalties for head coaches and getting rid of the ability for a head coach to throw an assistant coach under the bus and avoid being punished directly.

Another change that I think MAY benefit UM, depending on what the investigation uncovers and what the NCAA alleges took place, is how the NCAA will categorize infractions. The NCAA will scrap its current system of major and secondary infractions and go to a four-level stepladder - severe breach of conduct, significant breach of conduct, breach of conduct and incidental issues. While rape is clearly a horrendous act, that is not the focus of the NCAA. The DOJ/DOE is investigating issues related to the alleged rapes, while the NCAA is investigating why tailgaters gave out too many cookies and hot dogs to student-athletes, among other things.

Will be interesting to see if these changes will apply to UM or if this is just for new cases going forward.

 

[doebrmn]

The NCAA is not investigating whether someone gave out to many free hot dogs at tailgates. The NCAA is investigating improper benefits received by student/athletes.

 

[mtgrizrule]

The NCAA is not investigating whether someone gave out to many free hot dogs at tailgates. The NCAA is investigating improper benefits received by student/athletes.

You obviously missed seeing the mail Jean Gee had to send out recently. Yes, the NCAA is digging that deep.

 

[George Ferguson]

Hey doberman, why do you say that? Did the NCAA tell you that? Or, are you like every other Cat poster who comes on here telling us how hard the NCAA coming after Montana, because you read PapaG's really credible (lmfao) info on Bobcat Nation. Bottom line, you and PapaG don't know s--t about UM's NCAA Investigation, anymore than Griz fans do.

 

[doebrmn]

Havgrizfan weren't you the same person (I can't remember for sure without going back and searching) that made the same stupid comments when I posted last January that the NCAA was conducting an investigating (which was months before it was acknowledged by UM). Also, you might want to actually read the post. Nowhere did I state (or have I stated) that the NCAA is coming after UM hard. I simply stated the fact that the NCAA did not open an investigation of UM because it was concerned that too may free hot dogs were being given away at the tailgates.

 

[FCS Go!]

My understanding is that the new rules apply to violations occuring Tuesday and after.

 

[bigkid]

It will be a good day when the report is issued. Good or bad we will know where we are and where we are going. I think its fair to assume that smoking gun that some people were hoping for doesn't exist but some minor infractions (which could be found anywhere) probably do. It weighs heavy having it out there and I wish it would be disclosed.

 

[George Ferguson]

Dobermn, I have no idea what I posted in January.

But to be clear, that's not what you said...you said: The NCAA is investigating improper benefits received by student/athletes. And I simply said, I will bet the farm you have no proof of that.

 

[kurtismichael]

It will be a good day when the report is issued. Good or bad we will know where we are and where we are going. I think its fair to assume that smoking gun that some people were hoping for doesn't exist but some minor infractions (which could be found anywhere) probably do. It weighs heavy having it out there and I wish it would be disclosed.

:thumb:
The waiting is the worst part, I hope!

 

[BWahlberg]

The NCAA is not investigating whether someone gave out to many free hot dogs at tailgates. The NCAA is investigating improper benefits received by student/athletes.

Your two lines contradict each other - they are looking at improper benefits in the forms of meals, not just at tailgate parties though, however free food/meals is something they've been looking at. As the letter from Jean Gee to all boosters pointed out.

 

[doebrmn]

Again, my comments were not whether the NCAA is looking at whether too many hot dogs got served. My comments, if you read them, are that the NCAA started an investigation into improper student/athlete benefits. Those benefits were in no way related to tailgates. Now, whether the NCAA has raised that issue since the start of the investigation (which my guess is no) or (more likely) UM is now proactively warning its boosters to beware of improper benefits and is taking it to the extreme of free hot dogs (or other food....just an example) at tailgates, was not part of my comment. The comment now and always has simply been, the NCAA started an investigation of UM for improper benefits to student/athletes and it had nothing to do with tailgates.

I would also point out that it has come to light on this board (although I do not believe in any official capacity) that the NCAA has already looked into one situation and it resulted in player being ineligible for most of this season. That player is now eligible, so whether that means the NCAA decided there wasn't a violation or that there was a violation and the suspension has been served, I have no idea. But that should at least give you an idea of why the investigation was started.

Finally, I acknowledge your point Wahlberg as being correct, that statement is contradictory. I should have said that the investigation was not started by the NCAA to investigate whether too many free hot dogs were being served at tailgates.

 

[BWahlberg]

Again, my comments were not whether the NCAA is looking at whether too many hot dogs got served. My comments, if you read them, are that the NCAA started an investigation into improper student/athlete benefits. Those benefits were in no way related to tailgates. Now, whether the NCAA has raised that issue since the start of the investigation (which my guess is no) or (more likely) UM is now proactively warning its boosters to beware of improper benefits and is taking it to the extreme of free hot dogs (or other food....just an example) at tailgates, was not part of my comment. The comment now and always has simply been, the NCAA started an investigation of UM for improper benefits to student/athletes and it had nothing to do with tailgates.

I would also point out that it has come to light on this board (although I do not believe in any official capacity) that the NCAA has already looked into one situation and it resulted in player being ineligible for most of this season. That player is now eligible, so whether that means the NCAA decided there wasn't a violation or that there was a violation and the suspension has been served, I have no idea. But that should at least give you an idea of why the investigation was started.

Finally, I acknowledge your point Wahlberg as being correct, that statement is contradictory. I should have said that the investigation was not started by the NCAA to investigate whether too many free hot dogs were being served at tailgates.

:thumb:

Word up

 

[GrizBacker04]

The tailgating comment was more sarcasm than anything, which I guess was not picked up on. CLEARLY the NCAA started its investigation based on more than just some hot dogs and cookies.